Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mu. Chand Bee vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 January, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1986
1 WA-218-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 29th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 218 of 2025
MU. CHAND BEE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Anand V. Bhardwaj- learned Counsel for appellants.
Shri A. K. Nirankari- learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Hirdesh This intra-Court appeal under Section 2(1) of MP Ucchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Apeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 08-01-2025 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.38480 of 2024, whereby the petition filed by appellants (petitioners therein) has been dismissed.
It is contended on behalf of appellants that in pursuance of notice issued to Munnu Khan regarding possession of land in dispute bearing Khasra No.907, min 1.254 hectare of land, appellants, who are legal representatives of Munnu Khan submitted their reply in pursuance of suo motu power of revision of Collector dated 04-01-2012. Being dissatisfied with the order of Collector, appellants filed a revision before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2013. The Collector Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 10-Feb-25 5:42:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1986 2 WA-218-2025 had observed that there is interpolation and overwriting in the report of Patwari regarding grant of Patta of land in dispute and no spot inspection was done and the land which is settled could have been reserved for the purposes under Section 237 of the MPLRC. Allegedly above grounds mentioned by the Collector are lapses on the part of revenue authorities for which, case of Munnu Khan could not have been rejected and at the most, the matter could have been sent back for following due procedure. Settlement of land cannot be barred on the ground that it could have been reserved. Suo motu exercise of powers by issuing show-cause notice vide dt. 04-01-2012 by the Collector is bad in law, as in the entire order, the Collector has not disclosed the date on which such fraud/mistake came to his notice.
It is further contended by appellants that both the authorities, i.e. Collector and the Board of Revenue have committed a mistake in setting aside the order dated 21-03-2001 passed by Additional Tehsildar. Being dissatisfied, petition filed by appellants was dismissed by learned Single Judge holding that Munnu Khan has not filed any Khasra Panchshala to show that he was in possession after 1983 till 1999 and Khasra of Samvat 2057 (year 2000) also does not contain signature of person, who has made entry and it was found that Munnu Khan is an encroacher upon the land in dispute. It is further contended that a direction was also given to the Collector to take possession from the appellants, though Munnu Khan was in possession of land since 30 years and was doing agricultural activities of said land. Suo moto exercise of power under Section 50 of MPLRC was barred Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 10-Feb-25 5:42:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1986 3 WA-218-2025 by time, but learned Single Judge while dismissing writ petition of appellants held that suo motu power of revision exercised by Collector is appropriate as it was within a period of 180 days from the date of discovery of fraud/mistake. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for State opposes the contentions of appellants and submits that suo moto revisional power is provided under the provisions of MPLRC and the moment when it came to the notice of Collector, a show-cause notice was issued and, therefore, the matter was within the period of limitation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of appeal.
Heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the impugned order. In regard to exercise of suo motu revisional powers under Section 50 of MPLRC, the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh and Another vs. State of MP, reported in 2010 (4) MPLJ 178 has observed as under:-
''In order to exercise suo motu power of revision envisaged under Section 50 of the Code and looking to the scheme of Chapter V, it should be exercised by the Revisional Authority within 180 days from the date of knowledge of the illegality or impropriety of any order passed or as to the irregularity of the proceedings of any Revenue Officer subordinate to it and it will not be justifiable to stretch it for any length of period even for protection of the Government land or public interest'' From the aforesaid enunciation, it is clear that suo motu power of revision should be exercised by the Revisional Authority under Section 50 of MPLRC for protection of Government land or public interest, if, he after receipt of knowledge within six months (180 days), found that there is some illegality or impropriety of any order passed or as to the irregularity of Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 10-Feb-25 5:42:03 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1986
4 WA-218-2025 proceedings of any revenue officer subordinate to it. It is the duty of Higher Authority to see whether there is any misuse of Government land by local person(s) in collusion with the revenue authority or not. Therefore, suo motu revisional power exercised by the Collector in the given set of facts under Section 50 of MPLRC was within the period of limitation. Collector, within prescribed period after date of knowledge initiated the proceedings.
So far as merits of case is concerned, on perusal of impugned order, it was found that appellants failed to assert before the learned Writ Court whether part of land, bearing Survey No.907 min area 1.254 hectare, which was recorded as Noiyat Pahad (Hill), can be permitted for settlement or not. From Clause 1 of Chapter IV Part 3 of Revenue Book Circular, it was found that only the land suitable for agriculture can be settled. A ''Hill'' (mountain) can be said to be a land suitable for agricultural purposes, however, so far as the claim of Munnu Khan that he was in possession of land for the last 30 years and was doing agriculture activities is concerned, only Khasra Panchsala of Samvat 2057 and Khasra Panchsala of Samvat 2037-2040 were produced on behalf of appellants, which clearly shows that in year 1983 as well as in 2000, name of Munnu Khan was found mentioned as encroacher. Khasra of Samvat 2057 (year 2000) filed on behalf of appellants does not contain signature of person, who had made that entry and, name of Munnu Khan was mentioned as an encroacher. No evidence could be produced on behalf of appellants to show that Munnu Khan was in possession after 1983 till 1999. Appellants failed to prove that Munnu Khan was in continuous possession of land in dispute.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 10-Feb-25 5:42:03 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1986 5 WA-218-2025 On perusal of documents available therein, it was found that suo moto power of revision was exercised by the Collector vide order dated 04-01- 2012 upon receipt of record from the Court of Additional Tehsildar regarding fraud or illegality or irregularity committed by sub-ordinate revenue authority while granting Patta in favour of Munnu Khan. The order of suo motu revision passed by the Collector as well as affirmed by the Board of Revenue cannot be said to be illegal or perverse.
In view of aforesaid, we see no reason to take different view as the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellants on the basis of documents and facts available on record, are impeccable and the conclusion has been drawn after applying correct principle of law in that regard.
Consequently, the instant writ appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. Impugned order stands affirmed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
MKB
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 10-Feb-25
5:42:03 PM